dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-09-10 08:42:15: Wistia's new state of the Internet report takes a look an United States broadband speeds after analyzing millions of hours of video consumption. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

I'd be curious to see what a real HD stream would use.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

More than 1/5

If you take into account the people that can't stream because they don't have cable or DSL available to them it's closer to 30%.
Bob4
Account deleted
join:2012-07-22
New Jersey

Bob4 to ArrayList

Member

to ArrayList

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

8 Mbps
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

88615298 (banned) to ArrayList

Member

to ArrayList
Netflix uses around 5 Mbps
88615298

88615298 (banned) to Bob4

Member

to Bob4
said by Bob4:

8 Mbps

Only Vudu actually uses bitrates that high and you'll pay extra for that too.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to ArrayList

Member

to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:

I'd be curious to see what a real HD stream would use.

It depends on the codec and compression.

19MBps is the maximum that broadcast HDTV can use and they use a less efficient codec (MPEG2). Blu-ray Disc (BD) can use more than that. Streaming tends to use less because of home internet connections typically being lower bandwidth. It is a chicken and egg scenario.
Bob4
Account deleted
join:2012-07-22
New Jersey

Bob4 to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
I guess I was approaching it from the standpoint of: What connection speed is required to be able to receive any true HD stream?

norbert26
Premium Member
join:2010-08-10
Warwick, RI

norbert26

Premium Member

it doesn't matter

With usage caps and CATV protecting legacy business models it doesn't matter here in the U.S. . Solve that problem first then go from there.
Sukunai
Premium Member
join:2008-05-07

Sukunai to ArrayList

Premium Member

to ArrayList

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Looking at the map it is hardly shocking the states that have the least broadband correspond nicely with Canada's northern wilderness.

Hardly shocking eh. Why would there be a lot of broadband in places where there is a lot of no one around.

juilinsandar
Texas Gooner
Premium Member
join:2000-07-17
San Benito, TX

juilinsandar

Premium Member

Surprising that California isn't green

with silicon valley and many hollywood entertainment companies, one would think they'd have great HD streaming.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

18% Lack Adequate Bandwidth for HD Stream

Are you surprised by the study's findings that about a fifth of the United States is not capable of seamlessly streaming HD content?
No, not at all, in fact I was suprized we do so well.

AnonFTW
@rr.com

AnonFTW to norbert26

Anon

to norbert26

Re: it doesn't matter

said by norbert26:

With usage caps and CATV protecting legacy business models it doesn't matter here in the U.S. . Solve that problem first then go from there.

Caps are largely irrelevant. I streamed the first 3 seasons of The Office on Netflix last month and my TOTAL usage at the router was only 192GB. That's over 50 episodes plus my normal browsing. If I had to guess, I'd say those 50 episodes consumed 50% of my total usage.

asdfas
@comcast.net

asdfas

Anon

Greedy

Corporate Greedy + High price = Low bandwidth

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

These reports are still BS.

These test what users subscribe to not what they can subscribe to. Therefore these "state of the internet" reports are BS.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298

Re: More than 1/5

Click for full size
Wistia_HD_Da···port.pdf
1,480,497 bytes
Copy of report
said by 88615298:

If you take into account the people that can't stream because they don't have cable or DSL available to them it's closer to 30%.

I read the report, while households and corporations are mentioned. The methodology doesn't appear to exclude cell phones or Wi-Fi at a hotel. It also doesn't appear to consider some users may want less than 2Mb speed if they primarily surf or watch low res flash videos.

If at phone user has less than 2Mb of download capability, is it really a crisis? Do I expect my local Motel 6 to provide me individually with 2Mb reliably?

I'll try to link a copy of the report. I wish the methodology was better described, and that non-landline based access were explicitly excluded. Inclusion of Wi-Fi in hotels, and potentially corporations (or even homes) can skew the data badly. This is not taken into account as best I can tell.

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

cableties

Premium Member

What is recommended overhead...

when you have 2-4 family members streaming...? 30Mbs?

-computer software updates
-appliances on network
-i devices (phones, tablets)
-gaming consoles

Adds up fast, especially with 2 or more in the household using netflix, hulu, amazon, youtube, news and weather sites,
aerith
Premium Member
join:2008-12-31
Milpitas, CA

aerith to juilinsandar

Premium Member

to juilinsandar

Re: Surprising that California isn't green

To me, I am NOT surprised that California is not in "green", when it comes to HD streaming, especially with Netflix in "rich" Los Gatos, CA.

In Netflix's Los Gatos area, the only two options are Comcrap, which is terrible, and Verizon, but no FIOS.

Los Gatos was an ex-GTE market, until Verizon bought out GTE.

Even though one can buy a Lamborghini in Los Gatos, Verizon will not deploy FIOS over there, yet Verizon will deploy FIOS in more crime-ridden Long Beach.

The broadband status in most of the SF Bay Area, is very poor, at best, and as I said in another topic, there will be no true fiber optic solutions, for maybe now forever, because stupid Google didn't want to start in Mountain View.

I am definitely considering a move to Long Beach, and getting out of this SF Bay Area broadband hellhole.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora

Re: More than 1/5

said by pandora:


If at phone user has less than 2Mb of download capability, is it really a crisis?

Of course not! It's still in development mode (and really always will be) and I suppose "streaming HD video" is a better metric than say "can send 230k emails(spam) per hour"
But no crisis exists just because every household nationwide can't YET stream HD or or play games or the equivilent measure of USEFUL stuff.
but when they change the measurement method and unit size every year it is hard to look and see we',re better off then we were 4 years ago, and last year and are excelerating the rate of improvement.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom to ArrayList

Member

to ArrayList

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

200mb/s
Wilsdom

Wilsdom to cableties

Member

to cableties

Re: What is recommended overhead...

gigabit and you're done

inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK

inteller

Member

in other news of the obvious

This map overlays almost perfectly with a state population density map...with South Dakota being an outlier.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to battleop

Member

to battleop

Re: These reports are still BS.

I suppose technically, these users can all subscribe to T3 lines. I don't think that is realistic though.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

No, but it's reasonable to assume that people may choose price over speed and choose the cheapest package available. If this report accounted for what you COULD subscribe then the results would be on the high side.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

easier to shame companies..

wherever you have Century/Qwest, and AT&T and your service provider you have broadband that sucks or is non-existant..
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to aerith

Premium Member

to aerith

Re: Surprising that California isn't green

said by aerith:

To me, I am NOT surprised that California is not in "green", when it comes to HD streaming, especially with Netflix in "rich" Los Gatos, CA.

In Netflix's Los Gatos area, the only two options are Comcrap, which is terrible, and Verizon, but no FIOS.

Los Gatos was an ex-GTE market, until Verizon bought out GTE.

Even though one can buy a Lamborghini in Los Gatos, Verizon will not deploy FIOS over there, yet Verizon will deploy FIOS in more crime-ridden Long Beach.

The broadband status in most of the SF Bay Area, is very poor, at best, and as I said in another topic, there will be no true fiber optic solutions, for maybe now forever, because stupid Google didn't want to start in Mountain View.

I am definitely considering a move to Long Beach, and getting out of this SF Bay Area broadband hellhole.

There are a lot of people who would love to be able to subscribe to Comcast. As crappy as they are, their service is much less crappy than a vast amount of the connections out there.
silbaco

silbaco to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop

Re: These reports are still BS.

said by battleop:

These test what users subscribe to not what they can subscribe to. Therefore these "state of the internet" reports are BS.

That cannot be used as a valid way of measuring HD capability. It is impossible to know who can and cannot receive HD if they don't already. And technically if it defines 2mbps as the minimum, all states should be bright green because they can all get Exede which is fast enough to stream HD. You just could never watch it.
silbaco

silbaco to tshirt

Premium Member

to tshirt

Re: More than 1/5

It is not a crisis that people can't yet stream HD, but the question remains "How many people won't be able to stream HD in the next 5 years, 10 years?" If companies truly start abandoning DSL, we could see the improving numbers start to reverse.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

I don't think you're going to see anyone abandoning existing operational equipment as long as the income is above the cost of running it. I do think you are seeing reluctance to install need DSL equipment/remote huts where their is little chance of it being needed long enough to pay back the huge cost (and at the current rate of return) very longterm ROI being forfilled. instead they will push forward other technologies (fixed LTE being a hot one right now) that have similar and constantly expandable backhaul costs but avoid the huge sunk cost of the (really) last mile to EVERY premise) the advantage being the backhaul to the toweror strand can later be converted to FTT? when the density and take rate jusifiies it.

They will build "whatever" as needed IF they can see the ROI.

Blockgorilla
Sarcasm is my native tongue
join:2010-02-11
Wichita, KS

Blockgorilla

Member

A better ideo

What I would really like to see is a density map of the counry with the density of ISP's and some comparison of offered speeds. This might be something the sheeple would understand, an easy picture of what's wrong.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to asdfas

Member

to asdfas

Re: Greedy

said by asdfas :

Corporate Greedy + High price = Low bandwidth

As opposed to what?

Having the government steal even more from your neighbors, so as to fund even higher-cost bandwidth with a sweet subsidy for you?

No, thanks.

Bandwidth today, thanks to "corporate greed", is less than half the cost it was 10 years ago, with a few rare exceptions.
page: 1 · 2 · next